Jump to content

itman

Most Valued Members
  • Content Count

    4,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    135

itman last won the day on July 14

itman had the most liked content!

About itman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

7,899 profile views
  1. Actually it wasn't mentioned what account/s are used by the password specified in the e-mail. In regards to financial web sites as a rule, web sites of this nature don't as a rule use your e-mail address as logon id. They also usually require additional verification after logging on. For web sites where the logon id is your e-mail address and the password indicated in the e-mail is your password, I would change the password on those web sites. Also, I do hope the same password is not used on all the web sites you frequent.
  2. Also to clarify, I expect to see Eset alert displayed, entry created in Detection log showing AMSI detection, and script quarantined. Obviously since the script was never executed, PowerShell output display would not show what if given for the WD detection. Also rather going the AMTSO committee route, Eset could just create like test AMSI PowerShell malware .php script? Since it would only be detected by Eset, the "obsessive" FP concern would be eliminated.
  3. I just asked for a sig. to be added to verify Eset's AMSI detection functionality. No different in concept to existing AMTSO tests. Forget I asked.
  4. Wrong. Refer to the Microsoft article for output displayed from Powershell when detected.
  5. @Marcos, Eset AMSI doesn't detect this Powershell malware script; i.e. Win32/Mptest!amsi, that Microsoft developed to test AMSI functionality as noted below: Ref.: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/amsi/how-amsi-helps I assume and hope this is because Eset doesn't have a like sig. detection for this. Please add a sig. for this. Let me know when this is done so I can retest. Note: LiveGrid uploaded something when I was testing so the servers might already have code.
  6. Appears this Symantec utility will remove all traces of Norton on a Mac: https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/kb20080427024142EN Likewise for whatever other AV traces you found, there should be a stand-alone uninstall/cleaner vendor utility for it. Here's an Eset knowledge base article on how to uninstall and reinstall Eset on a Mac: https://support.eset.com/kb3239/?locale=en_US&viewlocale=en_US
  7. You made a wise choice. Glad to have you on board.
  8. I checked the code signing specification on both the Microsoft ELAM and AMSI certificates used in both Eset corresponding entities and they are identical; i.e. 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3. So at this point, I am at a loss as to why Win 10 1903 is blocking loading of the Eset AMSI .dll into PPL processes. What I do know is these code integrity errors for PPL processes were not occurring on Win 10 1809. I "religiously" check that event log for errors. I suggest Eset developers get together with Microsoft as to cause and resolution. -EDIT- One possibility is the Microsoft driver certificate Eset is using to sign its AMSI .dll must be EV status as the corresponding ELAM certificate is.
  9. Actually I misstated in use of Eset's ELAM cert. per se. Eset's needs to add the special PPL keys provided within the ELAM cert. to its existing driver authenticode cert..
  10. My take on this is this cert. can be used to sign .dlls. As you noted previously, Windows is attempting to load the AV amsi.dll into a PPL process. It wouldn't attempt it unless it assumed the .dll was properly signed. https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/10/injecting-code-into-windows-protected.html Or alternatively, just use one of the PPL bypasses noted in the article.🙄
  11. OK. Let's assume eamsi.dll has been added to the list of knowndlls, etc.. In any case, it will not be loaded into any PPL process because it is not properly signed to do so. Since Microsoft is increasingly using PPL to protect its processes, Eset's monitoring capability is increasingly being diminished. As any pen-tester "worth his salt" will attest, PPL is somewhat of a joke and multiple bypass POCs exist showing this.
  12. Figured out why Eset attempts to inject its AMSI .dl into svchost.exe PPL instances is failing. Had to dive into my reference materials. To inject code into a PPL process, the code must be signed at WindowsTCB authentication level. This is the highest signing level available. Eset signed the eamsi.dll with its regular driver certificate which is authorized for PP - Authenticode level only. Microsoft only issues one type of WindowsTCB level certificate. That is the certificate Eset used to sign its ELAM driver. Therefore it appears to me, Eset needs to sign the eamsi.dll with this certificate:
  13. Also, beware of the type of attacker you are dealing with if you decide to pay the ransom: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/688649/phobos-ransomware-help-topic-phobos-phoboshta/?p=4823841
  14. Also should not this registry key now be set to 0x2 since Eset's .dll is Microsoft Authenticode signed? It is still set to 0x1 on my ver. 12.2. 23 device: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/amsi/nn-amsi-iantimalwareprovider
×
×
  • Create New...